Paul v. City Of New York

Nature of the Order

The court ruled on motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented, and on evidentiary objections. The court stated that it had already resolved many issues at the April 30, 2024 Final Pretrial Conference and issued additional written rulings here.

Rulings on the Parties’ Motions

The court denied Plaintiff’s request for an adverse-inference instruction based on the claim that the Hospital Defendants destroyed emergency-room video evidence.

The court granted the Hospital Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiff’s Exhibit 38, a Root Cause Analysis Report prepared by the Quality Assurance Department at North Central Bronx Hospital. The court found that Plaintiff had not established the foundation needed to treat statements in the report as opposing-party statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), or as statements against interest under Rule 804(b)(3). In particular, Plaintiff had not adequately shown who prepared the statements, the declarant’s authority or employment relationship, or the other facts needed to establish admissibility.

The Officer Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Whaley and Dr. Cohen was granted in part and denied in part. Dr. Whaley may testify about the cause and manner of death, including whether actions by the officers contributed to or worsened the death. He may not testify about police policies or procedures, including whether the officers’ tactics and techniques were appropriate. The defendants may object at trial to testimony outside either expert’s area of expertise.

The court also ruled as follows on the Officer Defendants’ requests:

- The request to exclude evidence and arguments concerning dismissed or withdrawn claims, including the Bah incident, was granted. - The request to exclude a claim for economic damages consisting of funeral-expense reimbursement was denied. - The request to exclude evidence or arguments about investigations by the New York City Police Department and the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office was granted. - The request to exclude evidence of officers’ disciplinary histories, prior lawsuits, and other incidents was granted. - The request to prohibit Plaintiff from calling defense counsel “City attorneys” or suggesting that the City might indemnify the officers was granted. - The request to prohibit Plaintiff from asking the jury for a specific dollar amount was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff may not request a specific amount for pain-and-suffering damages, but may request a specific amount for quantifiable compensatory damages, such as funeral expenses, if supported by admissible evidence. - The request to exclude references to unrelated police-misconduct allegations was granted. The request to exclude terms such as “testilying” and “blue wall of silence” was denied without prejudice to renewal during trial, with advance notice required if Plaintiff’s counsel intends to use those terms. - The request concerning New York City Police Department policies and procedures was granted in part and denied in part. Portions of the Patrol Guide identified as Exhibits 4 and 6 may be used for the limited purpose of helping the jury assess the reasonableness of the officers’ actions. The court held Exhibit 7 in abeyance pending a more sufficient foundation. - The request concerning Exhibits 54–57, training materials about less-lethal methods, was held in abeyance pending Plaintiff’s identification of the specific pages and their proper purpose. - The request to exclude arguments that the officers should have acted differently, or used less or different force, was denied, subject to those arguments being tied to the objective reasonableness of the use of force. - The request to exclude arguments that the officers created the need for force or worsened the situation was denied. - The request to exclude the testimony of William Bratton and Philip Banks was granted.

Plaintiff’s Exhibits

The court held its ruling on Exhibit 3, an excerpt of North Central Bronx medical records, in abeyance pending the parties’ submission identifying admissible pages or portions. Exhibits 14 and 28, interview reports involving non-party hospital police officers, were excluded as hearsay without a stated non-hearsay purpose. The ruling on Exhibit 18, a diagram drawn by Chief Giordano during his deposition, was held until trial because its admissibility depends on his testimony.

Exhibit 19, a video of the scene, was allowed if Plaintiff lays the required foundation and removes the audio. Exhibits 10 and 63, scene videos, were also allowed, but the court directed Plaintiff to address whether their timestamps could be blurred or obscured. Without adequate authentication, the timestamps could not be admitted for their truth. Exhibits 23, 24, 34, and 37 were admitted, as were most of the autopsy photographs in Exhibit 35, subject to the court’s stated limitations. Rulings on Exhibits 35T, 35CC, and 35BBB were reserved pending more information, and only one of Exhibits 35C and 37 could be introduced because Exhibit 35C is a higher-resolution version of Exhibit 37.

The court admitted various scene photographs, still images from video, and photographs of the Sawzall, cameras, tasers, cartridges, and taser probes, subject to possible exclusion of cumulative photographs. It ordered timestamps removed from Exhibits 48–53. It excluded Exhibits 74 and 82, photographs of warning labels, because the labels were hearsay and their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Plaintiff may question witnesses about their knowledge and training concerning tasers and the Sawzall, subject to the court’s stated limitation.

Defendants’ Exhibits

The court held its ruling on several Office of the Chief Medical Examiner case-file reports in abeyance pending the Officer Defendants’ stated purpose for offering them. It excluded the business-record certification page identified as DE766 because Plaintiff did not object to the autopsy report’s authentication but did object to that page. A pharmacy-device report was admissible as a business record if properly supported at trial.

The court held its ruling on Exhibit T, an NYPD investigation follow-up report, in abeyance pending a letter from the Officer Defendants addressing whether the exhibit was generated as part of the NYPD investigation covered by the court’s ruling excluding evidence about that investigation. Radio runs were admissible as business records if properly supported, and 911 calls were admissible as excited utterances or present-sense impressions. The court deferred rulings on certain medical records pending a sufficient foundation and deferred a ruling on photographs in Exhibit U pending the parties’ explanation of their purpose.

Other Trial Procedures and Disposition

The Officer Defendants and Hospital Defendants were each allowed three peremptory jury challenges, while Plaintiff was allowed six. The court approved a summary for the jury describing the incident, Plaintiff’s claims concerning police use of force and wrongful death, and Plaintiff’s wrongful-death and medical-malpractice claims against the hospital defendants; the defendants deny the claims. The Clerk was directed to terminate all open motions. The order addressed pretrial evidence and procedures and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.